SADDLEWORTH Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 9 PM The great global warming swindle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spence Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Doh you beat me too it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomy Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Says it all really.Crap science that allows lots and lots of people to make vast amounts of cash off the back of it all and gives the media something to write about. In a nut shell, they have charts to show that the sun is the culprit here.They can show that over decades of records.The suns activity on a chart when compared to a global climate chart are spookily alike. Yet compare the CO2 levels (car exhaust fumes etc etc etc) when compared to global climate change and they are nothing like one another. As many have suggested, it's all b*****k*. The problem is, nobody will sit up and take notice of such a program now i doubt because they have been convinced by the media and governments. In fact, as i type this they just said that they keep showing ice collapsing etc and suggesting we are all doomed, yet this is "as common in the arctic as leaves falling from trees in the autumn". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spence Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 As Jonny Rotten once said EVER FELT YOU'VE BEEN CHEATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v7slr Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 If anyone's interested, I made some notes as the programme progressed. I might not be 100% accurate in what I've written here but captures the essence. QUOTE CO2 rises and falls AFTER global temperature does same, not as a result of. The difference in time is measured in terms of hundreds of years. CO2 amounts to about 1/20th of the overall gas in the atmosphere. Doubt exists that such a small amount of it could cause the effects claimed. Humans produce only a fraction of a percent of the overall CO2 produced each year. As sea temperatures rise, the seas give off more CO2, and vice versa - the seas absorb CO2 as their temps drop... explaining why CO2 output follows temperatures. From 1940 global temps dropped consistently for 4 decades as global CO2 outputs rose. Then in the mid 1970s temps started to rise just as the fuel crisis hit and CO2 output declined. This is in direct contrast to the oft-quoted "party" line. Piers Corbyn (scientist) produced consistently more accurate results when predicting weather which he did by observing the Sun. The quantity of Sun spots appears to be proportionate to the global temperature. This has been independently verified (see below). Solar activity rose up to 1940, then fell to 1975. Comparisons then made over the past 400 years show the Sun's activity is most closely linked to global temps. Increase in cosmic rays = decrease in global temps. Cosmic rays (from Supernovae - must admit I'm not sure how accurate this is) produce clouds. When the sun has more sun spots, the solar wind deflects cosmic rays less therefore we get more clouds, therefore global temps go up. Independently verified by NASA and American Oceanic Society. The Sun is driving climate change NOT CO2. So why do the media and Politicians insist it is linked to CO2? The oil crisis and miners' strikes in the 1970s plunged us into an energy crisis. Thatcher didn't trust oil from the middle east and hadn't got the coal available any more. So she was forced to look at nuclear and had to overcome the negative aspects by selling the "nuclear power doesn't emit CO2 - which is bad" line. The anti-capitalist "hippies" lobby pinned their hopes on the myth of CO2 causing global warming because CO2 is emitted by cars, therefore it must be bad. No other reason. No measurements made. This happened in the beginning of the hysteria, before the pseudo-scientists got involved. It's all about anti-capitalism. Once Global Warming started to attract media attention in the early 1990s, it was almost a fait accompli that the politicians would jump aboard. Scientists appealing for funds manage to get them so much easier if they claim they're researching the effects of whatever they are looking into (e.g. squirrel populations) relative to Global Warming figures. Politicians ploughed tons of cash into computer models, but those models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them, and there are hundreds of assumptions. Many of them are bad. Complete guesswork. The range of climate forecasts vary massively. Most models use human CO2 generation of 1% where in fact it has not exceeded 0.5% for decades. If the model doesn't show something "awesome" it doesn't get printed. The media isn't interested. It's now common for the media to pin the cause of any natural disaster (hurricanes etc) on Global Warming regardless of whether there's any truth in it. Evidence suggests Global Warming will make the earth less disastrous, with fewer natural disasters. The media warns of the complete opposite. Ice flows in the Actic are nothing new. Sea level changes are caused by 2 things, land mass height changes on a local level, and sea mass changes, associated with temperature changes on a global scale. There is no more or less water. The IPCC has doctored reports in their favour. Authors that have resigned from the IPCC get put onto the "Authors List" and are oft quoted as the 2500 scientists that agree with Global Warming principles. Many have had to threaten legal action to have their names taken off the list. Authors who write in contrast to the GW line are branded as being funded by the oil industry. Those interviewed claim not, and the programme claimed that there is next to no private funding. Govt and public funding is many hundred times larger than even the "perceived" (by the GW lot) private industry funding. Anyone writing to denounce GW is aggressively jumped upon by the GW lobby. "Aggressively", as in their addresses made public and their names published as though they were criminals. Vilified by campaign groups. One claimed death threats had been sent to him. These people are being branded similarly to holocaust deniers. Investment in GW has made it an industry in itself. Many many have vested interests in this propagating. Policies to reduce CO2 output is having a disastrous effect on the world's poor. The "precautionary principle" is only used in one direction only. Only talks about the risks of using particular technologies without exploring the benefits. They showed the hypocrisy of the plush surroundings of the United Nations meeting of 6000 delegates in Nairobi only a few miles from chronically poor people who have to cook over a wood-burning fire because they have no other forms of energy. The West is telling Africa and other similarly 3rd world nations that they should not use power stations. They should use solar and wind power which effectively means they will not be able to develop past medieval standards of living. They interviewed one of the co-founders of Greenpeace who thinks this GW policy is mad, and they interviewed an ex-editor or the new scientist. There were many others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Sorry but with a first year's heat transfer class you can simply calculate the influence of CO2 on the greenhouse effect. The Climate conference of the UN agrees and so do I. Of course people are influencing the climate. People who are saying otherwise are media horny or lack the physics to substantiate their claims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spence Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Sorry but with a first year's heat transfer class you can simply calculate the influence of CO2 on the greenhouse effect. Well... they best go and tell the Sea and Volcano's that then and stop them producing CO2, seeing as the CO2 produced by man pales into insignificance. In EVERY other CO2 build up the World cooled. Did you not watch the program? Like an idiot i put a GW project on my computer as asked by a TV program. The dates the model started and finished from was 1920-2080. Ooooooo that got me worried for a while . I left it on because it looked like a good screen saver. I predicted the out come the minute i looked at it. Oh loooooook how we are affecting GW the temps going up. Amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This world has been around for millions and millions of years and this project takes a snap shot over 150years,. C O N !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just like ALL religions the more people go on about it, the more FOLLOWERS will be sucked in. Suddenly FACT Becomes FICTION and FICTION becomes FACT. Even though REAL Science proves otherwise. In the 1970's we were all going to experience an ice age. I Believe Scientists who have nothing to gain. I DON'T believe those who have everything to gain and cause hysteria in the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cast iron Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Yep we once had an ice age and without the motor car or industry it melted! Oh and its still melting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 QUOTE In EVERY other CO2 build up the World cooled. b*****k*! Note the present day level! Ofcourse vulcanoes en the like emit CO2 and methane but the amount we are putting in the air now throws this balance(fluctuating between 200 and 300 ppm) completely off. Mayor breakdown of the climate system is imminent. No I didn't watch the show I was busy getting my PhD in Physics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter pan Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Population levels represent our greatest enduring problem. I often find it strange that the Eco babblers bleat on about emissions but say nothing about where they come from....... namely humans. Its like firemen trying to blow away smoke, but totally ignoring the fire which creates the smoke in the first place. Why do we cut forest down to create grazing land for cattle? (each of which produces more greenhous gas, Methane than a family car, AND 24/7!) Why do we flood thousands of square miles of land to generate huge amounts of hydro electricity? and huge amounts of methane from the vegetation as it rots under water. Why have we depeleted fish stocks in the sea, some to the point of extinction.? Why do we destroy square kilometres of rain forest to create palm oil plantations, for soap, additives etc?. Why do we destroy the habitat, and therefore the species in them to make more and more living space for humans? The answer of course is so that we can churn out ever greater numbers of humans. If someone can tell me why this is a good thing, I would be glad to hear it. For those who want kids, I say have them, as many as you like it is your right as a human being, but please dont commit the ultimate hypocrisy, of believing you are any kind of friend of the Earth if you do, and worse still wanting others to join the eco crusade so that they too can pay a price for what you have done. Every time an ecobabbler bleats on about anti AGW people being funded by oil companies etc, we now know that the pro AGW lobby is being funded by groups with their own vested interests. The government using the environment to levy higher and higher taxes!!!!?? they would never do that!...................would they? Just a surprise to see that Mrs T started the eco b*llox in this country as a method of smoothing the path for nuclear power. If we dont know how to contol global population, then we have no control over anything else. Soylent Green anyone??......................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man On The Clapham Omnibus Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 What intrigues me is, if there's no truth in it, why are governments around the world (USA excepted) buying into the theory; or saying that they are? My thought is that they really want to make themselves independent of the contemporary sources of oil: the Middle East and Russia in the main, and reduction in demand is the only way. The Middle East because it is a very unstable part of the world where WW3 could well start and cutting off the source of their money (oil) would reduce the risk, and Russia because that country is getting far too rich on oil/gas money and could well prove to be a threat in the future. Selling this view to the Great Unwashed would be difficult so it is dressed up as something that necessitates a big reduction in oil consumption at risk of world destruction; not from nuclear holocaust (the real reason) but from climate change (easier to understand when the climate really is changing anyway, but not due to CO2). It ties in with the desire by UK et al to retain their nuclear deterrents when the practicality of them as weapons in the modern world looks anomalous - they think they might need them if the World Order changes in the way it might if Russia is in the ascendent and the Middle East goes into meltdown. Just my scepticism and paranoia showing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdavies71 Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 geelhoed - From your own charts you will see that the CO2 increases lag behind the temperature - so what causes what? The suggestion is that the Oceans cause it - when it is warmer they release CO2, when it is colder they absorbs CO2, the oceans are so deep and massive they have a memory effect that causes this lag - decribed on last nights program as about 800 years. Whilst we are throwing around qualifications - BSc in Oceanography :-) and I beleive that the current media fixation on Global warming is hype. If you have five minutes read this - it is an additional piece of information about the suns influence on our climate - from an astronomic point of view: Milankovitch cycles Cheers Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter pan Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 The Earth is 4.6 billion years old, In time terms the human race has arrived in the last few seconds before midnight. In terms of the Grand Canyon, which is a mile and half deep, the entire human race from the first upright apes to the present day is represented by a stata just 15cm thick (and the entire period from the start of the industrial revolution is not even 1mm thick) If ,as some say the current problems ARE being caused by mankinds contribution, all it can mean, is that humanity is a devastatingly toxic organism to have caused such problems so quickly, and the sooner we are all eradicated, the better it will be for the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilb Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 it's repeated on monday 10pm more4 for those that missed it, like me, being talked at about other "more interesting" stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Keene Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 A very interesting program, that confirmed a lot of what I already believed. Yes, humnas may be having an effect on global warming. But if global warming is soley human created, how the hell did the last ice age end? Funny, nobody who believes in humans being to blame for GW can come up with an answer to that one... But what really made me laugh was the Co-Founder of Greenpeace, who is no longer related to it in anyway, says he got out when it started being used by the hippy lot as a politcal vehcile. He says when they left, they were campaining to get Clohrine banned... Which as most people is a periodic table element... That's like trying to ban C02! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.